A prominent legal practitioner has issued a sharp critique of the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ), arguing that the body has strayed from its core mandate and is failing to represent the diverse views of its membership on matters of national importance.
The author, a former president of the University of Zambia Law Association (UNZALAW), an advocate of the High Court, and a LAZ member, asserts that the association’s primary duty is to represent the views and interests of its members, from whom its governing power is derived.
The critique centers on the claim that LAZ’s recent public positions, particularly regarding the contentious Bill Number 7, do not reflect a consensus within the wider membership. The author contends that the executive committee has assumed its viewpoint is synonymous with that of all lawyers, a position labeled as “wrong.”
“You can only arrive at such a decision after having heard from all interested members of the association,” the author states. “LAZ should be fair enough and desist from making subjective decisions based on the views of a small fraction of lawyers.”
The argument hinges on the principle of internal democracy. The author insists that before taking a public stance on significant national issues, LAZ must actively seek and reach a consensus from its members. The piece suggests that if Bill Number 7 were put to a vote among members, a spectrum of divergent opinions would be revealed.
“Let LAZ not sway citizens into believing that its position is the position of all its members!” the author concludes, framing the current approach as not only internally problematic but also potentially misleading to the public.
The criticism raises fundamental questions about governance, representation, and due process within the country’s premier legal professional body, challenging it to realign its public advocacy with the demonstrable will of its electorate—the lawyers of Zambia.
There will be a lot of sweeteners this time and people will speak accordingly